Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.24 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 19 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956
S. G. Jaisinghani vs Union Of India And Ors.(With Connected ... on 22 February, 1967
In Jaisinghani v. Union of India, , the question before the Supreme Court was whether the seniority rule in regard to income tax service Class I, Grade II infringes the guarantees of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It was contended that Rule 1(f)(iii) of 1952 Rules was based upon unjustifiable classification between direct recruits and promotees after they had entered into Class I, Grade II. The Supreme Court found that the said rule is unconstitutional. It was observed in para 9 as follows:
Delhi Water Supply And Sewage ... vs R.K. Kashyap And Or8 on 28 October, 1988
52. Coming to the judgment of the Tribunal in OA No.5510 of 1995, dated 10-3-1998, which is subject-matter in WP No.1102 of 1998 and batch, be it noted that the case deals with promotion to the post of Professor in Psychiatry Branch of A.P. Medical and Health Service. It is not denied that the dispute before the Tribunal was between the direct recruit Assistant Professors (Psychiatry), and those Civil Assistant Surgeons who were later appointed as Assistant Professors on acquiring PG qualifications in Psychiatry. In the context of the facts, the Tribunal as well as this Court held that the seniority in the teaching cadre will have to be determined by reckoning the dates when the Civil Assistant Surgeons are posted in the teaching posts prior to 1988. This Court, further held as under:
Direct Recruit Class Ii Engineering ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 2 May, 1990
(b) If the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly
till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted.
S.N.Dhingra & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 January, 2001
In this context, we may refer to a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in S.N. Dhingra v. Union of India, , wherein it was held that appointment to a service and appointment to a post in the same service are two different concepts and while calculating seniority it is only the appointment to service which is to be reckoned with and not appointment to a post. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court are as under:
Dr. Ambesh Kumar vs Principal, L.L.R.M. Medical College, ... on 19 December, 1986
In Vinay Shankar v. Director General of Health Services, , Kumar Agarwal v. State of Bihar, AIR 1994 SC 15l4, Ambesh Kumar v. Principal, L.L.R.M. Medical College, Meerut, and Dr. Preethi Srivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh, , the Supreme Court categorically held that norms prescribed by the Medical Council of India have a direct impact on the standard of medical education, and any plenary law or delegated legislation by the State, which is inconsistent with the standards of Medical Education prescribed by the Union have no effect.